User talk:Pyrotec/Archive12Q2
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Dead link in article 'ROF Bridgend'
Hi. The article 'ROF Bridgend' has a dead link that could not be repaired automatically. Can you help fix it?
Dead: http://www.south-wales.police.uk/fe/master.asp?n1=8&n2=253&n3=691
- You added this in July 2005.
- The bot checked The Wayback Machine and WebCite but couldn't find a suitable replacement.
This link is marked with {{Dead link}} in the article. Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!
PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding {{Bots|deny=BlevintronBot}} to your user page or user talk page.
BlevintronBot (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Scots Law
Thanks for taking on the review! Take your time. Connolly15 (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
:)
Nice to see you're back :) Arsenikk (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello Pyrotec. Thank you for the review and for your kind words :) I left my comments at Talk:Leoš Janáček/GA1. Best regards. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Variable-frequency drive
Thanks for your guidense and making Variable-frequency drive a GA Shrikanthv (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
one small problem with Variable-frequency drive as you were the reviewer , as i understand you found that the lead was not matching wiki guidlines and once this was fixed it got GA . but now the lead is getting reverted back to the old version (cause of not giving GA ) , please revert us Shrikanthv (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Princess Theatre GAN
Pyrotec, I'm glad you're taking on this review.
The GAN for this article was initially picked up for review on April 19, but nothing was ever done on the GA1 after that first day, so it was sent back into the reviewing pool with the reviewer's consent after over five weeks of inaction so that the article could get a review. (One of two so abandoned, I'm afraid; the other was also retrieved.) The usual way to do that is to bump the number in the page parameter. There was no action and I believe it's wrong to add a "not listed" for a review that basically never happened, so I've removed your added article history, and also the commented-out transclusion of the aborted GA1 review. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment. I've now read the review (such as it was). A review was opened and I'm now doing the second review: and I suspect that it will pass (after corrective actions). In due course I will restore the {{article history}} and it will include both reviews. The nomination could have been referred for a second opinion (and possibly passed during that review). The first review was closed (as you say with the reviewer's consent) and the article was "not listed", so that is its correct status. Unfortunately, there are only two possible actions: listed (passed) or not listed. Pyrotec (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
GA2 for Princess Theatre (Edmonton)
I have made the requested changes, and the new version is up for your perusal. Again, thanks for your help. --Rawlangs (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Could you review this one sometime?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm happy to review it. I have a list of six reviews currently On-Hold/in-progress, but I seem to be clearing, on average, one per day. So, I'll add it to my list once I've cleared another candidate. Pyrotec (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Yikes! Are you the most prolific GA reviewer BTW?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- Under the current system:- not any more, I've only done about 410 reviews, Jezhotwells has done about 610. He has this habit of doing almost 100 reviews in one month every time there is a backlog elimination drive, and I can't do that number without burning out. Maleous has, I suspect, done a similar number, particularly in the GA Sweeps. Pyrotec (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, I've addressed your concerns I believe.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Great job, thanks for that. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks for your kind review and comments; I shall try to work the article up further in time for the Covent Garden revival.--Smerus (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Forgot to say
Nice work on Starfish site :) It's coming along nicely. --Errant (chat!) 12:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hi ErrantX, I hope we did not edit-clash. You're doing some good work on it as well. That article has been on my watch list for sometime, about two years. I saw one of your edits on "Examples" and that prompted me to do something. Someone recommended Fields of Deception and I've had it several years, but I've never got round to doing anything to the article until now. I've been to the Blackdown site and the Campsie site (but getting on for 10 to 20 years ago).
- I'm not sure how the article will develop over time. Q sites, etc, were an Air Ministry project to protect airfields and later aircraft factories, but the Navy was later brought in. QL & GF sites were then set to mimic/protect, factories, Royal Ordnance Factories, railway sorting yards, docks, harbours; and many Starfish sites, were co-located with QF or QL sites and later "Z" (or rocket) batteries.
- I will continue working on it, but in "slow time". Pyrotec (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hey! No, no edit clashing - it is nice to have a collaborator. I've be slowly plugging away at our WW2 deception topics for a while now and it tends to be a lonely task. :)
- I noted that we didn't have much good coverage of the other decoys - part of the reason I added the background into this article. Still not sure how best to address it - maybe expand the scope of that article to deal with the whole history of the decoy program (and obviously rename it)? As opposed to creating other short articles with duplication. Thoughts?
- I noticed the Dobinson book comes out in paperback later this year, so that's on order for me :) It looks good. (This all started with one not especially good history of deception about a year ago, and it spiralled out of control from there ;)) --Errant (chat!) 15:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- I've got the Dobinson hardback that's all there was then (I've also got Somerset v Hitler) - with its English Heritage background Dobinson's a very good read. I think my involvement was fixing some of the corrective actions for one of Rodw's Somerset WP:FACs; but for about the last three years, I tended to do little more than GAN reviews. Dobinson is (only) eight chapters and three appendices, but its 318 pages (including the index). He covers it chronologically. Its possible that one article could cover Starfish, QF and QL sites, i.e. deception at night-time. There is also the daytime confusion of "wooden" tanks and airplanes, air-filled rubber vehicles, etc. I don't think they are on your list, but I've not checked to see if the articles exist. Pyrotec (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Dummy tank is of relevance (it's not on my list, but that is incomplete anyway). That's a whole major topic in itself (a lot of work on dummy vehicles happened in the Middle East - i.e. under Jasper Maskelyne & Dudley Clarke - for example. I think you're on the right track though about organising this section of the topic... splitting decoy sites along the day/night line seems logical. And it would then naturally draw into a top level article covering decoys and dummy vehicles under Turner et al. --Errant (chat!) 15:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- OK by me. I've just had a look at Bodyguard of Lies and that lead me onto Michael Howard (historian). I've just found his book on sale from 64p (+ postage), upwards, at abebooks, so I've placed an order. (not one of the two 64p ones). Pyrotec (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Holt's "The Deceivers" is also a good book (although loooooooooong). BTW my favourite decoy story is one where the German's tried to build an elaborate wooden airfield in Holland - which the RAF spotted them making. So when it was finished they sent a lone bomber to drop a wooden bomb on it :) --Errant (chat!)
- OK by me. I've just had a look at Bodyguard of Lies and that lead me onto Michael Howard (historian). I've just found his book on sale from 64p (+ postage), upwards, at abebooks, so I've placed an order. (not one of the two 64p ones). Pyrotec (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Dummy tank is of relevance (it's not on my list, but that is incomplete anyway). That's a whole major topic in itself (a lot of work on dummy vehicles happened in the Middle East - i.e. under Jasper Maskelyne & Dudley Clarke - for example. I think you're on the right track though about organising this section of the topic... splitting decoy sites along the day/night line seems logical. And it would then naturally draw into a top level article covering decoys and dummy vehicles under Turner et al. --Errant (chat!) 15:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- I've got the Dobinson hardback that's all there was then (I've also got Somerset v Hitler) - with its English Heritage background Dobinson's a very good read. I think my involvement was fixing some of the corrective actions for one of Rodw's Somerset WP:FACs; but for about the last three years, I tended to do little more than GAN reviews. Dobinson is (only) eight chapters and three appendices, but its 318 pages (including the index). He covers it chronologically. Its possible that one article could cover Starfish, QF and QL sites, i.e. deception at night-time. There is also the daytime confusion of "wooden" tanks and airplanes, air-filled rubber vehicles, etc. I don't think they are on your list, but I've not checked to see if the articles exist. Pyrotec (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- I noticed the Dobinson book comes out in paperback later this year, so that's on order for me :) It looks good. (This all started with one not especially good history of deception about a year ago, and it spiralled out of control from there ;)) --Errant (chat!) 15:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Scots law
Thank you very much for taking on the review of Scots Law. Sorry for disappearing on you! When I have some time I will review your very helpful comments and continue working on the article. Many thanks again! Connolly15 (talk) 10:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Drive
Can you please check one or two of my reviews? Nobody has checked them and i feel weird haha XD Thanks! —Hahc21 22:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
=
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I advise you not to waste time opening a GAR on an article which is pretty much adequate. I honestly think the most constructive thing out of this would be for you to re review it yourself and educate TAP in GA reviewing so his future reviews are more thorough. I'm sorry you are not happy with it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Economic history of Argentina
Just wanted to thank you for your thorough GA review of Economic history of Argentina. I'll be working to make it a FA in due course!--eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
History and evolution of the Rhodesian premiership
Thanks for the very pleasant review. Looking at your talk page it is not the only one; have a virtual pat on the back. —Cliftonian (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)